RE: Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.
March 1, 2014 at 5:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm by Mystic.)
(March 1, 2014 at 4:55 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Google the null hyphothesis.
The argument would suggest strong atheism rather than weak atheism would be a more logical stance along with the stances I mentioned like denying certain arguments for God or soul sense we have. My argument was directed on weak atheism.
(March 1, 2014 at 4:50 pm)FreeTony Wrote: I've no idea what a God is supposed to be, and whether it is knowable or not if it existed.
(March 1, 2014 at 4:50 pm)FreeTony Wrote: Given the unfalsifiable/untestable nature of the God claim, I would say it is irrational to believe that this God definitely does not exist. It is also irrational to believe that it does. This all depends on the nature of the claim.
Doesn't this seem problematic? You say you don't know whether God is knowable or not, at the same time, you say it's illogical to acknowledge he exists when admit you don't know whether he is knowable or not.
If he is knowable, then it can be that, you are irrational for not knowing him, while people are rational for knowing him.
So it's not necessarily that you are taking the rational stance. It can be you are taking the irrational stance.
At the same time, saying even if God exists, he would not be knowable, is a grand claim in itself.
Thus it seems weak atheism is not all that rational as it's holders like to make out.
